[Avodah] Do Women Need To Hear Eicha?

[Chana Luntz]

RZS writes:

> Af hein hayu be'otah pur`anut.  If there were a "chiyuv" on men then it
> should logically apply to women too.

This assumes that (a) the af hein b'oto hanes is a principle of logic that
we can apply to circumstances other than those listed in the gemara and (b)
that there exists a flipside principle of af hein hayu be'otah puranut.  

I had always assumed, however, that af hein b'oto hanes was a reason why the
rabbis enacted eg megilla specifically for women, not something that we
could assume applied where there was no specific mention of a specific
enactment.

Any source material out there that would give support to one position over
another?

I am trying to think of an example but struggling here.  The best I can come
up with is, if you hold that Hallel is obligatory on Yom Hatzmaut (which of
course makes the argument rather artificial, as most of the people debating
this probably don't) does that apply to women too *even when they don't
generally daven more than the brochos al pi the Magen Avraham* on the
grounds that af hein b'oto hanes? 

Actually maybe Hallel in general is a better example.  Women are generally
understood to be patur from Hallel on the grounds that it is a mitzvah aseh
shehazman grama (see eg the Shagas Arieh (shut 69)).  But why don't we say -
well actually, women should be chayav in Hallel on Pesach and Channukah (af
hein b'oto hanes) but exempt on Sukkos, Shevuos (maybe?) and Rosh Chodesh?
Doesn't that indicate that af hein b'oto hanes is not applied except where
the chachamim specifically said it was, and therefore (and even more so) af
hein hayu b'otah puranut does not exist as a principle unless specifically
enacted by the chachamim?

>  But I agree with you that there is no chiyuv on men either.
> 
> --
> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Regards

Chana